213. Riding in bicycle laneWherever a bicycle lane is provided as part of a carriageway, and is in a reasonable condition for use, a rider of a bicycle shall use that portion of a carriageway and no other.

It has to be said that a bicycle lane is defined by bicycle lane start and end signs. There are precious few of these in Perth!

Here's another part of the WA RTA that seems to prohibit riding two abreast;

130. (1)Riding 2-wheeled vehicle alongside more than one other riderThe rider of a motor cycle, moped, power-assisted pedal cycle or bicycle shall not ride on a carriageway that is not a multi-laned carriageway alongside more than one other rider, unless the rider is overtaking the other riders.

BJL wrote:And you only have to use the bike lane if it's practical to use so it's not illegal to ride outside of the bike lane. If you're riding two abreast, it wouldn't be practical for the rider on the right to ride in the bike lane as they're often two narrow for riders to ride two abreast so picture 2 is also legal as far as I know.

I am pretty sure that is an incorrect interpretation of the law. If the left hand rider is inside the bicycle lane, then it is practicable to ride in it. Therefore to not ride in it (as is the case for all the cyclists riding in the right hand "column" in Picture 2) is against the law.

But that's *already* against the law, so I'm not sure what its purpose is in the petition, other than to mislead people in signing.

In Victoria, the law is worded as below:

247 Riding in a bicycle lane on a road (1) The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.

There's also nothing prohibiting cyclists from riding two abreast where there's a bike lane. So unless there's some law of physics that enables two objects to occupy the same space at the same time, it would be impracticable for a rider to ride in the bike lane if there's a rider immediately to their left riding in the bike lane.

And as for the third picture, as long as any riders to the right of any riders riding two abreast are overtaking, then the cyclists depicted are acting legally as well. In a static image, it can't be determined if cyclists are riding side by side or overtaking, so I'll need to see a video. But that picture also highlights a major misunderstanding between cyclists and motorists. Cyclists could be spread out riding two abreast but when viewed from behind, it might look like we're riding 4 or 5 abreast.

Anyhow, I'm not getting into an argument over this. How a person interprets the law is something the courts have to take into account. As long as the court agrees that a person's interpretation of the law is reasonable, then the law as a person interprets it must stand. The responsibility is for lawmakers to write the laws so they cannot be unintentionally misinterpreted. I think that both of our interpretations are reasonable and therefore we're both correct.

RobertFrith wrote:It's still very concerning that this muppet has got 105K signatures to date. But banning live export has only managed 125K and it's been running for a couple of months. The numbers count regardless of how many signatures are bots or out of towners.

Actually, NOT!

In the real world of MP's offices and representation of issues, ONE petition counts as ONE item of mail, just the same as one hand-written or typed letter from a constituent. The MP's staffer will count up the total number of items of mail received on an issue, and EVEN if the petition has half a million signatories it will still count as just ONE.

Lesson to be learned: best to combat this with a well-focused letter-writing campaign direct to your own MP, and to the Minister for Transport or Roads.

BJL wrote:And you only have to use the bike lane if it's practical to use so it's not illegal to ride outside of the bike lane. If you're riding two abreast, it wouldn't be practical for the rider on the right to ride in the bike lane as they're often two narrow for riders to ride two abreast so picture 2 is also legal as far as I know.

I am pretty sure that is an incorrect interpretation of the law. If the left hand rider is inside the bicycle lane, then it is practicable to ride in it. Therefore to not ride in it (as is the case for all the cyclists riding in the right hand "column" in Picture 2) is against the law.

But that's *already* against the law, so I'm not sure what its purpose is in the petition, other than to mislead people in signing.

In Victoria, the law is worded as below:

247 Riding in a bicycle lane on a road (1) The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.

There's also nothing prohibiting cyclists from riding two abreast where there's a bike lane. So unless there's some law of physics that enables two objects to occupy the same space at the same time, it would be impracticable for a rider to ride in the bike lane if there's a rider immediately to their left riding in the bike lane.

And as for the third picture, as long as any riders to the right of any riders riding two abreast are overtaking, then the cyclists depicted are acting legally as well. In a static image, it can't be determined if cyclists are riding side by side or overtaking, so I'll need to see a video. But that picture also highlights a major misunderstanding between cyclists and motorists. Cyclists could be spread out riding two abreast but when viewed from behind, it might look like we're riding 4 or 5 abreast.

Anyhow, I'm not getting into an argument over this. How a person interprets the law is something the courts have to take into account. As long as the court agrees that a person's interpretation of the law is reasonable, then the law as a person interprets it must stand. The responsibility is for lawmakers to write the laws so they cannot be unintentionally misinterpreted. I think that both of our interpretations are reasonable and therefore we're both correct.

At the moment, sans any court ruling I think you are. The contrarian in me would love to see a ruling on this however....I find it hard to believe that riding next to someone in a bike lane as described is "legal" solely due to the use of the word "impracticable". It's the cyclist's choice to ride alongside his mate, not a neccesity. I actually find the use and interpretation of the word "impracticable" on cycling forums to be quite out there at times.

ColinOldnCranky wrote:I think that the proposition to ban dual cycling is wrong but I hope we can present a better argument than

BJL wrote:This would be a violation of human rights

That statement may have a nice sound to but it has as much to do with human rights as my right to drive on the wrong the side of the road.

Sorry, I should have clarified that this statement is in response to the petition's proposal to also ban cyclists on roads with a speed limit greater than 80kph if there are no bikes lanes. This would dramatically restrict my right to ride in most rural areas as most country roads and highways have 100kph speed limits and no bike lane.

AdelaidePeter wrote:I am pretty sure that is an incorrect interpretation of the law. If the left hand rider is inside the bicycle lane, then it is practicable to ride in it. Therefore to not ride in it (as is the case for all the cyclists riding in the right hand "column" in Picture 2) is against the law.

But that's *already* against the law, so I'm not sure what its purpose is in the petition, other than to mislead people in signing.

In Victoria, the law is worded as below:

247 Riding in a bicycle lane on a road (1) The rider of a bicycle riding on a length of road with a bicycle lane designed for bicycles travelling in the same direction as the rider must ride in the bicycle lane unless it is impracticable to do so.

There's also nothing prohibiting cyclists from riding two abreast where there's a bike lane. So unless there's some law of physics that enables two objects to occupy the same space at the same time, it would be impracticable for a rider to ride in the bike lane if there's a rider immediately to their left riding in the bike lane.

And as for the third picture, as long as any riders to the right of any riders riding two abreast are overtaking, then the cyclists depicted are acting legally as well. In a static image, it can't be determined if cyclists are riding side by side or overtaking, so I'll need to see a video. But that picture also highlights a major misunderstanding between cyclists and motorists. Cyclists could be spread out riding two abreast but when viewed from behind, it might look like we're riding 4 or 5 abreast.

Anyhow, I'm not getting into an argument over this. How a person interprets the law is something the courts have to take into account. As long as the court agrees that a person's interpretation of the law is reasonable, then the law as a person interprets it must stand. The responsibility is for lawmakers to write the laws so they cannot be unintentionally misinterpreted. I think that both of our interpretations are reasonable and therefore we're both correct.

At the moment, sans any court ruling I think you are. The contrarian in me would love to see a ruling on this however....I find it hard to believe that riding next to someone in a bike lane as described is "legal" solely due to the use of the word "impracticable". It's the cyclist's choice to ride alongside his mate, not a neccesity. I actually find the use and interpretation of the word "impracticable" on cycling forums to be quite out there at times.

Deleted post. I might have taken your post the wrong way. But I will say that necessity shouldn't come into the debate. Unless you want to go down the road of cyclists been restricted from using the roads unless for 'approved' purposes, whatever motorists determine that to be, while they keep using the roads freely because 'they need their cars'.

fat and old wrote:At the moment, sans any court ruling I think you are. The contrarian in me would love to see a ruling on this however....I find it hard to believe that riding next to someone in a bike lane as described is "legal" solely due to the use of the word "impracticable". It's the cyclist's choice to ride alongside his mate, not a neccesity. I actually find the use and interpretation of the word "impracticable" on cycling forums to be quite out there at times.

Completely agree here.

(One thing to add would that I would expect that leaving the cycling lane (when safe to do so) to overtake a cyclist would be considered acceptable. While there isn't explicit guidance on this it is obviously impractical to not leave the lane when turning, overtaking etc...)

BJL wrote:Cyclists are entitled to ride two abreast.

Are they??? No. Cyclist are allowed to ride two abreast within a lane.

BJL wrote:And in doing so, it would be impracticable for a cyclist to ride in the bike lane if there is a cyclist immediately to your left already in a bike lane. Simple as that.

Yep. So don't ride two abreast. You are right it is impractical to ride in a bike lane if there is a cyclist immediately to your left. So you should slow down or speed up and then enter the cycle lane. Not particularly hard, entirely practicable.

BJL wrote:What are you going to suggest for roads like Beach Rd in Melbourne? Thousands of cyclists riding single file along there on weekends would be a complete joke. They'd be strung out all the way to Frankston. And if cyclists can't ride two abreast, then motor vehicles shouldn't be allowed to be fitted with seats two abreast either. And for that matter, motor vehicles shouldn't be allowed to drive two abreast so ALL roads can be reduced to a single lane. Because that's effectively what they're trying to do with cyclists.

Are they??? No. Cyclist are allowed to ride two abreast within a lane.

What is a 'bike lane'? And for the purpose of that rule, is a 'bike lane' considered a lane, or a road related area? Just like the rule specifying that motorists must make a left hand turn from the left hand lane, except that a 'bike lane' is not considered a 'lane' for this rule. How many other rules do not consider a 'bike lane' to be a 'lane'? I couldn't be bothered going through the entire document at the moment. I only know that one because of the issue of motorists left hooking cyclists who are riding in bike lanes.

BJL wrote:And in doing so, it would be impracticable for a cyclist to ride in the bike lane if there is a cyclist immediately to your left already in a bike lane. Simple as that.

human909 wrote:Yep. So don't ride two abreast.

Why not?

BJL wrote:What are you going to suggest for roads like Beach Rd in Melbourne? Thousands of cyclists riding single file along there on weekends would be a complete joke. They'd be strung out all the way to Frankston. And if cyclists can't ride two abreast, then motor vehicles shouldn't be allowed to be fitted with seats two abreast either. And for that matter, motor vehicles shouldn't be allowed to drive two abreast so ALL roads can be reduced to a single lane. Because that's effectively what they're trying to do with cyclists.

You are desperately clutching at straws here.[/quote]

Not clutching at straws at all. Just applying the proposed petition to motorists. And in addition to my 'clutching at straws', perhaps it's motorists who shouldn't be allowed to drive on roads with a speed limit greater than 80kph but no bike lane. I'm sure the bike lanes would soon be built then. In the interim, speed limits along such roads can be reduced if motorists want to use those roads.

You're starting to sound like the motoring lobby. 'Oh, cyclists shouldn't do this and shouldn't do that, blah, blah, blah'. Maybe we should just ban cycling altogether until separated infrastructure is built. Would that please you? I guess signing this stupid petition will have to suffice for you for now.

BJL wrote:Deleted post. I might have taken your post the wrong way. But I will say that necessity shouldn't come into the debate. Unless you want to go down the road of cyclists been restricted from using the roads unless for 'approved' purposes, whatever motorists determine that to be, while they keep using the roads freely because 'they need their cars'.

Didn't see your post, so dunno. It's cool if you disagree though....I can see your reasoning if I don't agree with it. I reckon that necessity is a big part of the equation if you're going to challenge the practicality of using the bike lane however.

"It was necessary to stay out of the bike lane due to the rubbish in it"

"It was necessary to stay out of the bike lane due to the potholes and broken edges"

"It was necessary to stay out of the bike lane due to the recurring issue of tacks being dropped illegally"

"It was necessary to stay out of the bike lane as it puts me at danger in the dooring zone"

Necessity absolutely comes into the debate when it suits. You can't remove it when it doesn't. I just can't see riding next to someone being considered a necessity is all. This viewpoint shouldn't and doesn't equate to cyclists not being allowed to use roads, nor place restrictions other than existing road rules on them. Anyway, it's just a hypothetical discussion

A large proportion of the bike lanes in Sydney are useless because they place the cyclist in the door zone and that makes it worse than not having one as Motorists expect you to ride in bike lane.

Anyone want to modify the picture replacing their motor vehicle with a bike Title it Problem Solved and list underneath it a series of benefits;- Reduces Congestion- Reduces Pollution- Improved Health- Faster Commute during Peak Period- Less Wear and Tear on the Road- etc

Are they??? No. Cyclist are allowed to ride two abreast within a lane.

What is a 'bike lane'? And for the purpose of that rule, is a 'bike lane' considered a lane, or a road related area? Just like the rule specifying that motorists must make a left hand turn from the left hand lane, except that a 'bike lane' is not considered a 'lane' for this rule. How many other rules do not consider a 'bike lane' to be a 'lane'? I couldn't be bothered going through the entire document at the moment. I only know that one because of the issue of motorists left hooking cyclists who are riding in bike lanes.

A bike lane is a lane. That wasn't my point. So again stop with the strawman arguments.

My point was bolded AND underlined but that seemed to escape you. There is no such laws as 'cyclists are entitled to ride two abreast'. There is a law that explicitly doesn't make it illegal, there is a big difference.

BJL wrote:

BJL wrote:And in doing so, it would be impracticable for a cyclist to ride in the bike lane if there is a cyclist immediately to your left already in a bike lane. Simple as that.

human909 wrote:Yep. So don't ride two abreast.

Why not?

As per the law requiring cyclists to ride in bicycle lanes.

BJL wrote:You're starting to sound like the motoring lobby. 'Oh, cyclists shouldn't do this and shouldn't do that, blah, blah, blah'. Maybe we should just ban cycling altogether until separated infrastructure is built. Would that please you? I guess signing this stupid petition will have to suffice for you for now.

Wow. Tone done the rantyness and take a heavy dose of valium. I'm not lobbying for anything just stating the law for how it is written.

You like to say you're saying how the law is written but you refuse understand my interpretation of it. So I'll say it yet again, there is NOTHING in the road rules saying cyclists cannot ride two abreast on a road with a bike lane. And in such a case, it would be impracticable to ride in the bike lane if there is a cyclist in the bike to your left. Therefore you don't have to use the bike lane.

Go look up the definition of impracticable.

And where does it say that cyclists riding two abreast must be in the same lane? All it says is that cyclists riding two abreast in the same lane must be within 1.5m of each other. There's nothing to prohibit one cyclist using the bike lane and another cyclist riding on his right in a traffic lane. If there is, then by all means post it here. By the way, I'm referring to Victorian Road rule 151. And to save you the trouble, rule 247 deals with the bicycle lane.

And I don't want to hear anymore of the necessity crap and how it's a choice to ride two abreast and what not. Motorists make the choice as to which roads they drive along. They can always choose to drive somewhere else. They could choose to walk or take public transport too. But most are too lazy to organize themselves so need an expensive polluting motor vehicle at their beck and call.

I'm sick of this crap. I won't post on this thread again so you can say whatever the hell you want. You think I'm wrong and ignorant. Good for you. Have a nice day.

BJL wrote:You like to say you're saying how the law is written but you refuse understand my interpretation of it. So I'll say it yet again, there is NOTHING in the road rules saying cyclists cannot ride two abreast on a road with a bike lane. And in such a case, it would be impracticable to ride in the bike lane if there is a cyclist in the bike to your left. Therefore you don't have to use the bike lane.

Go look up the definition of impracticable.

I completely understand your interpretation, I just think it's wrong . Impracticable means "impossible in practice to do or carry out". It's not impracticable to drop back a couple of metres so you can ride single file.

The "two abreast" rule actually is about *in the same lane* (see ARR 151: "(1) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must not ride on a road that is not a multi-lane road alongside more than 1 other rider ... (2) The rider of a motor bike or bicycle must not ride in a marked lane alongside more than 1 other rider in the marked lane" , my emphasis). So we're allowed to ride two abreast in the same lane, i.e. in the bicycle lane. In some bicycle lanes that is possible, in most that is not, and we have to go single file in the latter case.

On top of all that, I doubt you could convince a court of your interpretation.

BJL wrote:I'm sick of this crap. I won't post on this thread again so you can say whatever the hell you want. You think I'm wrong and ignorant. Good for you. Have a nice day.

?? I don't think your ignorant at all. As stated, I don't even know if you're wrong. I just have a different opinion. Interesting thing I guess is that your equating "being wrong" with being ignorant. Given that you think I'm wrong, I am therefore ignorant. Your words, and they are hurtful.

See how easy to be stupid about things?

Go look up the definition of impracticable.

AS Adelaide Peter has posted the def, no need for me to. The reason I raise this is that the example you give; of riding next to another in a bike lane; is probably the only example I've seen that is truly impracticable and fits that law. All of the others....doorings, rubbish in the bike lane etc etc...are unsafe. Not impracticable. Important difference.

Are we talking official bicycle lanes (of which there may be a total of 1km of these in the whole of Sydney)? Most bicycle lanes are not official so the riding two abreast prohibition is pretty inconsequential.

AdelaidePeter wrote:Impracticable means "impossible in practice to do or carry out". It's not impracticable to drop back a couple of metres so you can ride single file.

In saying impossible you are setting the bar a bit high. The meaning of a word like ' impracticable ' in a statutory provision depends, to a significant extent, on the statutory context, but it ordinarily connotes that which is not reasonably feasible or not reasonably capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished - ie not merely what is possible, but questions of ease & convenience. What is practicable is a common term in the road rules & the interpretation applied by a court would generally be one that is consistent with those other uses.

biker jk wrote:Are we talking official bicycle lanes (of which there may be a total of 1km of these in the whole of Sydney)? Most bicycle lanes are not official so the riding two abreast prohibition is pretty inconsequential.

Agreed. 100% with this.

But there is a certain absurdity to making claims that are 'entitled' to ride two abreast regardless of other laws or simple physical reality is just plain wrong. The law is quite clear that cyclists car ride two abreast when sharing a lane, doesn't mean they must be physically or practically able to at all times. (AKA if the lane is narrow)

biker jk wrote:Are we talking official bicycle lanes (of which there may be a total of 1km of these in the whole of Sydney)? Most bicycle lanes are not official so the riding two abreast prohibition is pretty inconsequential.

On my entire commute, the only official bicycle lane anywhere on the route (excluding the M2 Shoulder) is a short section on the Pacifiy Hwy at Artarmon, city bound.

It starts at Hotham Pde and ends about 30m later. It's only purpose is to allow cyclists who have used the Left Turn Only lane to go straight ahead (as permitted by the sign before the intersection).

If you have no used the left turn lane to go straight ahead, then the mandatory on road lane serves no purpose.

RobertFrith wrote:Despite all the talk about the petition being filled with fake names I haven't seen any evidence, anyone else got the gos on that?

Harvested from posts on his page or others.

Interestingly the denial took the form of "we detected no unusual activity". Sounds suspiciously like someone who once said "I've never failed a drugs test."

That was Change.org, not the petitioner, who said that. What else could they say? They couldn't phrase the denial more strongly (e.g. "no unusual activity took place") because no detection method is perfect. I still think the signatories are mostly genuine (and mostly ignorant).

Indeed it was Change.org that said that. My comments about the qualified nature of their denial stand.

I've seen a few examples of "I didn't sign this! How did my name appear as a signatory? " so I have no doubt that bots have been used. Exactly what percentage is at this time unknown. I wish the signatory list was searchable - I'd love to know if mine is on there, as I suspect it is, having commented and subsequently been banned. That's exactly the kind of thing Ivan/Ian/Ivan would do, for reasons that are not hard to guess.

AdelaidePeter wrote:Impracticable means "impossible in practice to do or carry out". It's not impracticable to drop back a couple of metres so you can ride single file.

In saying impossible you are setting the bar a bit high. The meaning of a word like ' impracticable ' in a statutory provision depends, to a significant extent, on the statutory context, but it ordinarily connotes that which is not reasonably feasible or not reasonably capable of being put into practice, done or accomplished - ie not merely what is possible, but questions of ease & convenience. What is practicable is a common term in the road rules & the interpretation applied by a court would generally be one that is consistent with those other uses.

I agree your definition is probably closer, but I didn't just make that definition up. I got it from some site like dictionary.com (not sure which one because I was on a different computer to the one I'm on now).

ColinOldnCranky wrote:I think that the proposition to ban dual cycling is wrong but I hope we can present a better argument than

BJL wrote:This would be a violation of human rights

That statement may have a nice sound to but it has as much to do with human rights as my right to drive on the wrong the side of the road.

Sorry, I should have clarified that this statement is in response to the petition's proposal to also ban cyclists on roads with a speed limit greater than 80kph if there are no bikes lanes. This would dramatically restrict my right to ride in most rural areas as most country roads and highways have 100kph speed limits and no bike lane.

I'm not supposed to ride on such roads. Tut tut, I always seem to forget the legal limitations when I'm moving around the country with the unicycle.

It is always worth looking for yourself.... from the Miriam-Webster law dictionary...."Legal Definition of impracticable: excessively difficult to perform especially by reason of an unforeseen contingency"

I would think this gives you a lot of leeway in how you see riding in the bike lane on any given day, a starter list of possible contingencies already being given. You could add the rider that allows people to drive in the right hand lane "the traffic in each other lane is congested".

Who is online

About the Australian Cycling Forums

The largest cycling discussion forum in Australia for all things bike; from new riders to seasoned bike nuts, the Australian Cycling Forums are a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.